When did the Coke Appear?

[Guest]

On 12/14/2017 at 5:36 PM, Steve Thomas said:

Jim,

 

I also ran across an FBI interview of Roy Truly done on 11/23.

During his interview, he said that Mrs. Reid had told him that LHO had had a coke in his hand.

I can dig it out if you need.

 

Steve Thomas

That coke from a machine while the power was cut off...............

 

Truly adds Reid's name on the bottom of his statement from the 23rd.

Reid has to insert the coke matter in her written statement.

Sander's recites a phone convo with Reid and the whole thing is declared gospel.

Reid is caught out claiming a conversation that wasn't entirely hers.

http://www.prayer-man.com/pauline-sanders-mrs-robert-reid-and-o-v-campbell/

 

Hine is in the office and claims no one else in there between 12:25-12:35. Power was off.  First person to arrive was a policeman.

Stanton claimed to go up immediately after. Yet seen by Hine as part of group entering 20 odd mins later as part of a group incl. Reid, Molina and Stanton. Hine just uttered ohh and ahss and kept her mouth shut during her WC, since Reid was sitting straight across from her at work. No one likes a grass.......yet she spoke the truth when it really came down to it.

Baker and Truly contradicted themselves when it came to

1. How they entered the building
2. Who said "let's take the stairs."
3. Who walked ahead of whom on those stairs.
4. Oswald's actual position inside the lunch room during the encounter.
5. That damn coke!

Oswald gave the coke away for them to use against him. That coke he had with his lunch before the shooting. And in my opinion was still consuming on those front steps while the motorcade passed as he is The Prayer Man. 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 17, 2017 by Bart Kamp

[Sandy Larsen]

The FBI reports that include the Baker/Oswald encounter also have the following chronological mistake:

1. First the Baker/Oswald second-floor encounter occurs.
2. Then Oswald eats his lunch in the lunchroom.

This sequence of events is backward!
 

It is my contention that it was the later addition of the fabricated Baker/Oswald encounter that broke the chronology.

For example, this James Bookhout  report:

"OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, at the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police officers, he was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a Coca–cola from the soft-drink machine, at which time a police officer came into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there. MR. TRULY was present and verified that he was an employee and the police officer thereafter left the room and continued through the building. OSWALD stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employees’ lunch room. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman BILL SHELLEY, and thereafter went home."

Note how the chronology is backward.

Now, let's remove the Baker/Oswald encounter and see what happens. I will strike it all out here:
 

"OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, at the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police officers, he was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a Coca–cola from the soft-drink machine, at which time a police officer came into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there. MR. TRULY was present and verified that he was an employee and the police officer thereafter left the room and continued through the building. OSWALD stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employees’ lunch room. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman BILL SHELLEY, and thereafter went home."

What I have struck out is precisely what was added later by the FBI.  (IMO)

Here is what is left after removing those additions, and without any further editing:
 

"OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, he was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a Coca–cola from the soft-drink machine, OSWALD stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employees’ lunch room. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman BILL SHELLEY, and thereafter went home."

This was the original report before the Baker/Oswald encounter was added. Note that the text still flows properly.

Note also that the chronological mistake has been corrected.

 

Details Here
 

Edited December 18, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

Just now, Sandy Larsen said:

 

"OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, he was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a Coca–cola from the soft-drink machine, OSWALD stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employees’ lunch room. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman BILL SHELLEY, and thereafter went home."

This was the original [James Bookhout] report before the [fabricated] Baker/Oswald encounter was added.

 

IMO the above quote is an accurate excerpt from the original Bookhout Report, before the fabricated Baker/Oswald second-floor encounter was inserted. Therefore I believe it accurately portrays what Oswald said at the interrogation. I believe that Oswald bought the Coke on the second floor, took it down to the first floor, and had lunch in the employees' lunchroom. After which he went outside and stood around Bill Shelley for several minutes.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Sandy:

 

What do you make of Reid then?

[Steve Thomas]

13 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

IMO the above quote is an accurate excerpt from the original Bookhout Report, before the fabricated Baker/Oswald second-floor encounter was inserted.

 

Sandy,

 

I'm just curious.

 

If the Baker/Truly/Oswald second-floor encounter didn't happen, why do you think was it inserted into the record?

What are the advantages, or implications? Didn't it give Oswald an alibi?

 

Steve Thomas

[B. A. Copeland]

On 12/15/2017 at 1:38 AM, David Von Pein said:

And Oswald would never lie.....right Jim?

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/Oswald, Baker, Truly, And The Coke

For the record, what is your explanation for Baker's lack of a 2nd floor lunchroom encounter in his first affidavit? He wrote it on the very day according to the record.

[David Von Pein]

3 hours ago, B. A. Copeland said:

For the record, what is your explanation for Baker's lack of a 2nd floor lunchroom encounter in his first affidavit? He wrote it on the very day according to the record.

Marrion Baker describes the encounter in his original affidavit. He just didn't specifically say the encounter occurred in the "lunchroom". Given the frantic circumstances just after the assassination, I think it's quite possible that Baker might not have had the slightest idea he had encountered Oswald in a "lunchroom" at all. The brief encounter took just a matter of seconds, and Baker was certainly not concentrating his attention on the TYPE of room he was in at the time he shoved his gun up against Oswald's mid-section. And Baker, of course, wasn't familiar with the layout of the building at all on November 22. So he might have only later learned that the encounter took place in the Depository's lunchroom.

Yes, Baker got the floor number wrong in his Nov. 22 affidavit. But the absolute proof that the "Oswald/Baker Lunchroom Encounter" took place is Roy Truly's presence there in the lunchroom when Baker saw Oswald. Truly confirmed it happened on the SECOND FLOOR and in the LUNCHROOM. And Truly confirmed it was OSWALD who had been stopped by Baker.

Do conspiracy believers really want to drag Roy S. Truly through the mud by labelling him a l-i-a-r or a "conspirator"? Come on. That's just silly.

Also --- I'm wondering if the skeptics would be more willing to accept the lunchroom encounter if Officer Baker had said "second or third floor" in his original affidavit, instead of "third or fourth floor"? I doubt they would. But it's quite clear to me that Baker wasn't sure at all which floor he was on when he saw Oswald. Hence his writing "third or fourth floor".

In addition --- OSWALD HIMSELF confirmed that the encounter with Baker took place on the SECOND floor, not on any other floor. Oswald told Captain Fritz it was the "second floor". That's in Fritz' notes and Fritz' written report too (WR; p.600).

Was Oswald lying too? Was LHO in cahoots with Truly and Baker....and Fritz? Or was Fritz lying too?

More on the Lunchroom Encounter here:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-973.html

 

Edited December 19, 2017 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

I once said that DVP should do stand up.

 

The proof of that is above us for all to see.

The guy just rewrote the first day Baker affidavit.  Which does not take place in the lunchroom, does not take place on the right floor, and which features no coke, and the guy he accosted does not fit the correct description and is wearing a jacket.  Dave says, no problem.

And Greg and Sandy  just showed how Oswald's words were transformed,  but Davey says, forget it.

At least he did not say this time:  Vince Bugliosi said it happened alright!

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

Marrion Baker describes the encounter in his original affidavit. He just didn't specifically say the encounter occurred in the "lunchroom". Given the frantic circumstances just after the assassination, I think it's quite possible that Baker might not have had the slightest idea he had encountered Oswald in a "lunchroom" at all. The brief encounter took just a matter of seconds, and Baker was certainly not concentrating his attention on the TYPE of room he was in at the time he shoved his gun up against Oswald's mid-section. And Baker, of course, wasn't familiar with the layout of the building at all on November 22. So he might have only later learned that the encounter took place in the Depository's lunchroom.

Yes, Baker got the floor number wrong in his Nov. 22 affidavit. But the absolute proof that the "Oswald/Baker Lunchroom Encounter" took place is Roy Truly's presence there in the lunchroom when Baker saw Oswald. Truly confirmed it happened on the SECOND FLOOR and in the LUNCHROOM. And Truly confirmed it was OSWALD who had been stopped by Baker.

Do conspiracy believers really want to drag Roy S. Truly through the mud by labelling him a l-i-a-r or a "conspirator"? Come on. That's just silly.

Also --- I'm wondering if the skeptics would be more willing to accept the lunchroom encounter if Officer Baker had said "second or third floor" in his original affidavit, instead of "third or fourth floor"? I doubt they would. But it's quite clear to me that Baker wasn't sure at all which floor he was on when he saw Oswald. Hence his writing "third or fourth floor".

In addition --- OSWALD HIMSELF confirmed that the encounter with Baker took place on the SECOND floor, not on any other floor. Oswald told Captain Fritz it was the "second floor". That's in Fritz' notes and Fritz' written report too (WR; p.600).

Was Oswald lying too? Was LHO in cahoots with Truly and Baker....and Fritz? Or was Fritz lying too?

More on the Lunchroom Encounter here:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-973.html

 

Fritz cribbed his "notes" from FBI agent Bookout, he was espousing the official story, so yes he lied.  He was in over his head and knew it.  He had little choice in the matter. 

[Guest]

Pointing you all to Sean Murphy's observations regarding Fritz's handwritten notes. The comparison between the FBI documents is there as well.

[Sandy Larsen]

20 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Sandy:

 

What do you make of Reid then?

 

Jim,

I don't have a comprehensive theory regarding the 2nd floor encounter and haven't yet studied Reid's testimony.

The reason I don't believe the 2nd floor encounter occurred is because of inconsistencies in the initial and evolving statements of Baker, Lovelady, and Shelley. And how the photographic evidence (films, actually) show that they all lied in their WC testimonies. For example, Lovelady and Shelley testified that they waited three to four minutes on the TSBD steps after the shots, at which point Gloria Calvery arrived. Films show that Gloria arrived within 30 seconds. Their initial statements paint a much different story which is consistent with each statement and with the films. And with what Victoria Adams told researcher Barry Ernest. (That the WC changed her testimony.)

 

[Guest]

More Sean Murphy at Lancer in 2007 who posts the differences of Bookhout's reports. And also on the coke.

A thread like this shows to me that The Lancer forum needs to be reinstated even as an archival site would do it for me.

 

Edited December 19, 2017 by Bart Kamp

[David Von Pein]

10 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I once said that DVP should do stand up.

The proof of that is above us for all to see.

The guy just rewrote the first day Baker affidavit.  Which does not take place in the lunchroom, does not take place on the right floor, and which features no coke, and the guy he accosted does not fit the correct description and is wearing a jacket.  Dave says, no problem.

And Greg and Sandy  just showed how Oswald's words were transformed,  but Davey says, forget it.

And the one person DiEugenio completely ignored just now is Roy S. Truly, who is the person who verified the "encounter" took place on the SECOND FLOOR in the LUNCHROOM with OSWALD.

But I guess Roy Truly was just one more lying S.O.B. who wanted to frame poor Lee Harvey, right Jim?

(Jimmy's stand-up gig in Vegas awaits.)

---------------------------------------------------

1964 interview with Baker & Truly:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOVXZ4WkFnSDVWdzA/view

Edited December 19, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

17 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

Sandy,

I'm just curious.

If the Baker/Truly/Oswald second-floor encounter didn't happen, why do you think was it inserted into the record?

What are the advantages, or implications? Didn't it give Oswald an alibi?

Steve,

First let me note that I didn't begin with a conclusion (that the second floor encounter didn't occur) and then look for evidence to support it. Rather, I began with the evidence and ultimately concluded that the second floor encounter didn't occur. So I can only speculate as to why the encounter was inserted into the story.

It appears that Oswald had a pretty strong alibi. He was on the first floor and in the employee lunchroom right before or around the time the motorcade went by. He was probably seen by others while there. I believe he was also seen by a police officer on the first floor, near the front entrance, right after the assassination. The government had to eliminate this alibi. They apparently did so by changing Oswald's first-floor encounter with some police officer to a second floor encounter with Officer Baker, near the back of the building.

The second floor encounter may seem like a good alibi to those who know the timing quite well, but superficially it makes sense that a guilty Oswald went down a couple floors and went into a back room right after shooting the president.

 

[David Von Pein]

54 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I...ultimately concluded that the second floor encounter didn't occur.

Sandy,

If the lunchroom encounter never occurred at all, then can you provide an explanation for WHY both Marrion Baker and Roy Truly would have a desire to go on national TV in September of 1964 and tell lie after lie regarding their encounter with Lee Oswald on 11/22/63?

Those two men weren't being FORCED to go on television and repeat their alleged lies....so why do you think EITHER man would want to say the things they said in this 1964 video? Did they do it just for kicks---even though, according to you and many other conspiracy believers, they KNEW they would have to lie their asses off every second they were on camera with CBS News?

And the same question applies to Marrion Baker and his VOLUNTARY appearance at the 1986 Bugliosi/Spence docu-trial. Baker wasn't issued a subpoena forcing him to appear at that mock trial. So why did he want to (again) go on national TV and lie his butt off? Who would do a thing like that--over and over again--if he didn't HAVE to?

 

Edited December 19, 2017 by David Von Pein